Traveller bride-to-be awarded €15,000 after hotel found to have discriminated against

KeithTS

Fly_away wrote: »

Nope, I think there is absolutely a justification in a hotel turning down a Traveller wedding. And because there's a more than reasonable justification, I don't think it's discrimination. In a similar way I don't think it's discriminatory to place restrictions on sex offenders and their involvements with children once they are released from prison.

If you owned a hotel you wouldn't want Travellers to have a wedding there either if you were honest about it (which I suspect you're not).


I don't think a lot of the people who shout 'THAT'S DISCRIMINATION!' around these parts and in the liberal media actually understand fully what discrimination is and that's part of the problem.

There are many very obvious distinction between placing restrictions on sex offenders and placing them on members of a specific community/ethnicity.
Sex offenders, for one, have been convicted of crimes that they themselves have committed, they aren't being discriminated against based on the actions of other people.

Would you place restrictions on the child of a sex offender for the actions of their father for instance? Probably not. I'm not saying whether I think the hotel was right or wrong, that's a bigger debate and I'm not getting into it but it is 100% discriminatory practice, there's no point in denying that.

Overheal

fantaiscool wrote: »

That would be standard. Say you can't take the booking because of something else like renovations are taking place for example. People could then say that there wasn't any "institutional racism" involved. The place was going to be renovated and they just changed our mind about the renovation. It was nothing to do with the group being travelers. I care about racism, show me an example of racism and I will fight it!!

Such schemes are usually doomed to failure and can enhance liability on the hotel from civil damages to criminal violations for knowingly and willfully conspiring to commit discrimination.

RandRuns

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Think about this for more than 3 seconds and you can see how absurd it is to compare on one hand, specific individuals convicted of a crime (i.e. "sex offenders") and an entire group of people who haven't necessarily done anything wrong on the other hand.

I mean it's almost as though you were trying to make the most clear-cut case of discrimination possible with that comparison.

This would be true, if pretty much every single traveller wedding didn't end in mayhem. Ever heard the saying "there's only two sure things in life; death and taxes"? You could add a third - fighting at a traveller wedding. As sure as night follows day.

ELM327

fantaiscool wrote: »

Exactly. Refuse them service because they are travelers and then deny the real reason why. They surely wouldn't be able to figure it out.

Thankfully the judge in this case took action. Travelers have been discriminated like this for a very long time.

It doesnt matter if they can figure it out.
Once it's not awarded by the court it doesnt matter.

FreudianSlippers

RandRuns wrote: »

This would be true, if pretty much every single traveller wedding didn't end in mayhem. Ever heard the saying "there's only two sure things in life; death and taxes"? You could add a third - fighting at a traveller wedding. As sure as night follows day.

"pretty much" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there isn't it?

Overheal

Fly_away wrote: »

It wasn't meant as an exact parallel, it was a point made to illustrate that we can make judgments about people and groups and treat them differently as a result. And sometimes that's fine.

But reading the replies from some on this thread, you'd swear that the mere notion of treating anybody or any group even slightly different from others is 'discrimination', regardless of any real life justifications you might have.

That’s literally what discrimination is though. You’ve simply decided that some discrimination is justifiable.

JimmyVik

breezy1985 wrote: »

Sex offenders have committed a crime.
The woman booking the hotel as far as we or the hotel know never has and she certainly had no previous with the hotel herself so you are working on the assumption based on experience with others which is discrimination.
Your example is wrong and it's more like banning all for example all men between the age of 30 - 60 cause some are sex offenders

It's discrimination just own it. I do

Ok so lets put it like this.


You are staying in a hotel. Your kids are off playing on their own around the grounds of the hotel all day as kids love to do in hotels. They come back for dinner. Had a great day.

You here from a member of staff that a convicted paedo has booked a party in the hotel with 100 of his mates the next day. Will your kids be playing around the grounds of the hotel the next day?

fantaiscool

ELM327 wrote: »

It doesnt matter if they can figure it out.
Once it's not awarded by the court it doesnt matter.

The point is that the discrimination is there and thought of as "the right thing to do" by many.

This is why when travelers talk about issues like this they get gaslighted and told that there is no large scale "institutional racism" against them. The primary goal of the people doing the discrimination is to lie about it at all costs and pretend its not happening. You have to insult the intelligence of travelers in the process and pretend not to see any discrimination against them. They can't even book a wedding in a hotel but sure theres no discrimination when it comes to housing or getting a job John Joe! That's all in your head!

RandRuns

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

"pretty much" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there isn't it?

Have a chat with a Garda, Hotel employee, or hotel owner. Ask them if they have ever known a single traveller wedding that hasn't ended in violence.
I have, they all say the same thing. Traveller wedding = violence.

Overheal

JimmyVik wrote: »

Ok so lets put it like this.


You are staying in a hotel. Your kids are off playing on their own around the grounds of the hotel all day as kids love to do in hotels. They come back for dinner. Had a great day.

You here from a member of staff that a convicted paedo has booked a party in the hotel with 100 of his mates the next day. Will your kids be playing around the grounds of the hotel the next day?

You’re again raising an issue of one person’s crime, and it has nothing to do with the pedophiles race or color or creed.

Fly_away

Overheal wrote: »

That’s literally what discrimination is though. You’ve simply decided that some discrimination is justifiable.

Can you give me the full definition as to what you think 'discrimination' actually is?

Because we might have two different understanding/interpretations as to what it actually means.

I think the following definition is where I'm at with it - 'Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.'


The 'unjustified' part is really important imo and it gets glossed over too easily.

FreudianSlippers

JimmyVik wrote: »

Ok so lets put it like this.


You are staying in a hotel. Your kids are off playing on their own around the grounds of the hotel all day as kids love to do in hotels. They come back for dinner. Had a great day.

You here from a member of staff that a convicted paedo white man has booked a party in the hotel with 100 of his mates the next day. Will your kids be playing around the grounds of the hotel the next day?

Ah this is actually a really simple one.

Most convicted sexual offenders against children are white men. For your analogy to work, I fixed your post.

Travellers are going to milk this ruling for all they can get.

Fully expecting a flood of cases now.

Overheal

RandRuns wrote: »

Have a chat with a Garda, Hotel employee, or hotel owner. Ask them if they have ever known a single traveller wedding that hasn't ended in violence.
I have, they all say the same thing. Traveller wedding = violence.

Anecdotal conjecture.

RandRuns

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ah this is actually a really simple one.

Most convicted sexual offenders against children are white men. For your analogy to work, I fixed your post.

What percentage of white men are convicted paedophiles?

Now,

What percentage of traveller weddings end in mayhem?

FreudianSlippers

RandRuns wrote: »

What percentage of white men are convicted paedophiles?

Now,

What percentage of traveller weddings end in mayhem?

That makes zero sense.

RandRuns

Overheal wrote: »

Anecdotal conjecture.

Yes, anecdotal indeed. If I had a hotel, and my choice was between having my hotel wrecked "anecdotally" or taking a chance on the anecdote that some traveller weddings don't end in violence, I know which I'd bet my premises on.

dd973

Jerking off about Travellers and LGBT people, the Irish psychosis.

RandRuns

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That makes zero sense.

Makes a lot more sense than your post it responds to.

ELM327

fantaiscool wrote: »

The point is that the discrimination is there and thought of as "the right thing to do" by many.

This is why when travelers talk about issues like this they get gaslighted and told that there is no large scale "institutional racism" against them. The primary goal of the people doing the discrimination is to lie about it at all costs and pretend its not happening. You have to insult the intelligence of travelers in the process and pretend not to see any discrimination against them. They can't even book a wedding in a hotel but sure theres no discrimination when it comes to housing or getting a job John Joe! That's all in your head!

If they tried to integrate into society and change their attitude to "outsiders", their abuse of women and children and countless other issues, it would be a different story.


Until that happens however, the clear rational decision for risk mitigation as the venue is to avoid hosting these ceremonies.

jmayo

dinneenp wrote: »

Why isn't the hotel's name published?

Yes so we can go there in the knowledge there won't be any chance of a mass brawl involving pickaxe handles, slashhooks, briar hooks and the likes.

Zookey123 wrote: »

Its more a cultural thing with travellers. I don't think they jell well with others. I have met a lot of travellers (very common from were I grew up) and not one of them was pleasant. I do have sympathy for the hotel as the probability of the traveller community causing trouble is very high. Does that justify discrimination? Probably not and I would say they prefer paying the 15 Grand than having to deal with that. I do feel sorry for the sound travellers though (I would probably leave that community if I was them).

Ah you haven't met the travellers that the likes of seamus and the other lads know.

The biggest laugh of all is that all the ones defending this lady and her no doubt large extended family would probably spit out there coffee if these people moved anywhere near them.

Of course they are loath to admit that, unlike the rest of us.

A bit like the night on the presidential debate where a huge chunk of the country recognised only one candidate was anyway honest.

FreudianSlippers

RandRuns wrote: »

Yes, anecdotal indeed. If I had a hotel, and my choice was between having my hotel wrecked "anecdotally" or taking a chance on the anecdote that some traveller weddings don't end in violence, I know which I'd bet my premises on.

So if 90% of child sex abusers are white men but not all white men are child sex abusers then the logic would follow that if 90% of all traveller weddings end in violence not all traveller weddings will end in violence.

breezy1985

JimmyVik wrote: »

Ok so lets put it like this.


You are staying in a hotel. Your kids are off playing on their own around the grounds of the hotel all day as kids love to do in hotels. They come back for dinner. Had a great day.

You here from a member of staff that a convicted paedo has booked a party in the hotel with 100 of his mates the next day. Will your kids be playing around the grounds of the hotel the next day?

He is a convicted paedo convicted is the important word. He is definitely a paedo and yes I would be worried.
The traveller woman is not definitely a criminal. You assume she is due to the group she is from which is the definition of discrimination

Not any little bit the same thing.

Now if hotel staff came and said Mary the traveller is having a party and she has done loads of time for assault then it would be the same

FreudianSlippers

RandRuns wrote: »

Makes a lot more sense than your post it responds to.

Does it though?

Smee_Again

I worked a traveller wedding once in a Galway hotel. There was c. 300 guests and it was great craic, genuinely good fun and they were all good natured and polite until we tried to close the bar.

They wouldn’t allow us and I ended up serving through to about 8am in the function room for everyone including non residents made a load of tips too but I was a little afraid.

The GM came in at 8am and managed to talk them into leaving and no damage was done but it could have easily turned nasty if we had closed the bar.

statesaver

dd973 wrote: »

Jerking off about Travellers and LGBT people, the Irish psychosis.

Whatever gets you off, man.

RandRuns

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So if 90% of child sex abusers are white men but not all white men are child sex abusers then the logic would follow that if 90% of all traveller weddings end in violence not all traveller weddings will end in violence.

Nice changearound.

If I was wary of say, having a white man teach my child, because "90% of paedos are white men" it would not be a reasonable position, because the percentage of white men who are paedos would be infintesimally small.

If 90% of traveller weddings end in violence, then it is only reasonable that I be wary of hosting a traveller wedding, because the chances it will end bad are extremely high.

Surely you can't really be this simple, and are only pretending to be to make some obtuse point?

RandRuns

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Does it though?

Yes.

Overheal

Fly_away wrote: »

Can you give me the full definition as to what you think 'discrimination' actually is?

Because we might have two different understanding/interpretations as to what it actually means.

I think the following definition is where I'm at with it - 'Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.'


The 'unjustified' part is really important imo and it gets glossed over too easily.

A justified distinction would be a Jewish person is Jewish, an unjustified distinction would be that Jewish people are untrustworthy because certain distinguished Jewish figures have been untrustworthy. Blondes have blonde hair, QED, but blonde people do not have low IQs because some individual people perceived to be imbeciles are blonde. Americans refers to US citizens, they are distinguished by their nationality, but not all US citizens are overweight aggressive buffoons. Irish are citizens of Ireland, there’s no denying that, but not all Irish drink alcohol nor are alcoholics.

breezy1985

RandRuns wrote: »

Nice changearound.

If I was wary of say, having a white man teach my child, because "90% of paedos are white men" it would not be a reasonable position, because the percentage of white men who are paedos would be infintesimally small.

If 90% of traveller weddings end in violence, then it is only reasonable that I be wary of hosting a traveller wedding, because the chances it will end bad are extremely high.

Surely you can't really be this simple, and are only pretending to be to make some obtuse point?

What is the actual percentage of traveller weddings that end in violence just out of curiosity